Instead of typing in your departure point and your desired destination, just give the data to the reliable numbers cruncher – but be prepared for a presentation of multiple routes.

The Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative took a ride into the future with Ciolek at its Oct. 9 meeting as he presented options for paying for improving the region’s water quality over the next half century and beyond.

“This is a model created just to kick the tires,” Ciolek, a former executive director of the Boston Water and Sewer Commission and current member of the town’s comprehensive financial advisory committee, told the board. “No financial plan makes sense until a community or Cape has developed a strong consensus… as to the benefits.”

Ciolek ticked off a handful and a half, among them protection of drinking water and public health, allowing responsible growth and targeted development, renewal and protection of saltwater and freshwater resources, and maintenance of residential and commercial property values.

Estimated total capital costs – excluding operation and maintenance – for wastewater options range from $5.2 billion to $7.6 billion in Ciolek’s model. With 215,999 people on the Cape per the 2010 census, and 133,215 developed properties, that comes out to $38,900 to $46,000 per property – just for capital costs over the decades ahead.

“That’s one year of tuition at a private school,” Ciolek said. “It’s serious money.”

Affecting the range would be “how we control, if at all, future development on Cape Cod. Do we allow increasing amounts of development in nitrogen-sensitive areas or not?”

The model requires “a financial contribution from people not hooked into the system, in return for the seven benefits,” Ciolek said. ‘You have to throw in an eighth benefit: picking up the cost of that property needing a new Title 5 system. I sort of socialized that cost.”

Besides operating costs, other factors excluded from the model include the impact of future litigation, connection costs and fees, and costs driven by contaminants of emerging concern.

The “two-generation, 50-year” effort, Ciolek said, should be one in which “everyone will benefit directly and everyone will contribute.”

The model foresees 50 percent of capital cost and 100 percent of operating cost paid by Cape Cod residents and businesses. Twenty-five percent of capital cost would come from one or more new sources, statewide or regional, and another 25 percent from the feds. There would have to be adjustments for low-income property owners, Ciolek said, “but not at the expense of other payers into the system.”

Hopes for federal money are not unrealistic, according to Ciolek. He said that source paid 20 to 25 percent of the giant Massachusetts Water Resources Authority in and around Boston for a project that totaled $4.4 billion. “If the federal government can do that for them, they can do that for us,” he said.

The infrastructure construction grants other regions of the county used in the 1970s and ‘80s are gone, but Ciolek stressed that the government continues to spend “hundreds of millions on wastewater. They just call it earmarks.”

Pointing to “over a billion” spent to restore Chesapeake Bay in “Washington’s back yard,” Ciolek said, “We have to make Cape Cod an important federal priority. A large portion of Cape Cod is owned or controlled by the federal government. If they want to keep one of the natural jewels of the park system in immaculate condition, they have an economic interest in helping.”

As for the state, Ciolek recommended pursuing options that have statewide applicability, target a wide base from which to raise funds, and seek a significant enough sum to improve the project’s affordability.

A commonwealth commitment to zero-percent loans over 50 years is critical for the model’s success, according to Ciolek. “It’s a savings of $1.3 billion,” he said.

[New legislation in the state Senate is pointing in that direction, looking out to the year 2069 for such projects.]

Options the state could pursue, ones that would be tied to aiding water quality projects throughout the commonwealth, include increasing the motor fuel tax by 5 cents per gallon, adding an excise on water consumption, earmarking 25 percent of new gaming revenue and of an anticipated Internet sales tax, and a toll on the Canal bridges.

Assistance for low-income homeowners could be produced statewide by restructuring boat excise taxes, tapping revenue from the proposed expanded bottle bill, or creating a septic improvement fund excise of, say, $200 per installation and $20 per pump-out.

Washington and Beacon Hill will help those who help themselves, Ciolek advised as he laid out ways for Cape Codders to keep costs down. Choosing the least costly organizational model, directing growth to non-nitrogen-sensitive areas and “setting a firm goal of keeping future growth on Cape Cod to 15 percent over the project period” could save more than a billion dollars, according to Ciolek.

On the Cape, revenue-generating ideas include increasing the ferry embarkation fee by $1.50, expanding the room occupancy tax to seasonal rentals, creating an air embarkation excise tax, and rededicating existing local-options meals and room occupancy taxes.

Other options include offering state tax relief for business investments, “creating a revolving loan fund that could involve some pretty significant money,” Ciolek said.

“That’s a model,” Ciolek said of his work. “It’s a series of assumptions. One thing is not arguable: This will be opposed by a large number of people.”

Collaborative chair Larry Ballantine, a Harwich selectman, thanked Ciolek for his work. “We’re all afraid to stick our necks out and make statements people can argue about,” Ballantine said. “We’ll debate it as we go forward.”

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.